brayeagle
nice score on the BP-17. When did your purchase this pre-amp?
Happy Listening!
5,507 responses Add your response
Todd - others may have additional SQ comparisons - my contribution addresses other marketplace factors. The design prospectus for Thiel and Vandersteen could be interchanged; they have conceptually the same design goals, launched at the same time into different arenas, avant-garde Southern California and conservative Midwest. Vandersteen in Southern California was blessed with a robust and sophisticated market with dealers, equipment makers and clientele capable of sorting out the best musical outcomes from the components at hand. So Van took the approach of dual inputs and user adjustability which allowed the audiophile to fine-tune the speakers to their musical taste, room and amplification. The audiophile dealers loved this flexibility and cooperated with Van to get great market penetration. Add to that the enclosure design differences. Van's cabinets were nearly free compared to Thiel cabinets. With the cabinet savings, Van engaged in driver matching and pair crossover tuning. Each Van pair was nearly identical and musical as the next. Thiel adopted the easy to love cabinetry and high Wife Acceptance Factor as part of its DNA. It was considerably more expensive than Van's approach and it garnered its own followers, but prevented overnight upscaling of manufacture; our cabinet-making required capital and training that simply weren't required by Van. So, Thiel's dealers were a different profile - more mainstream, businesslike and less audiophile - tweek. Thiel's attempt at dual inputs was not successful because inappropriate experimentation by less audiophile users sometimes yielded poor sonic results which were blamed on the speaker. Jim and Kathy couldn't be bothered with such uncontrollable variables and simplified to single inputs, which increased the demands on the driving amp and left the tweakier crowd disappointed. Thiel tested every component to a standard rather than a mate, so a particular pair might be less well matched than a Van, even though it fell within a tight spec window. In the marketplace there were many dealers who wanted to represent both Thiel and Vandersteen, and Thiel welcomed that situation. Vandersteen prohibited that product combination which may have been the largest component of the either - or marketplace division. Although the two brands reach for the same goals in very similar ways, each has its own voice. History says that Vandersteen achieved a far larger audiophile following, but Thiel garnered over 60 design and engineering awards around the world over the years, evidencing a higher level of critical acclaim. When someone asks me what brands to consider I always say Vandersteen. |
Thiels and Vandrsteens, having owned a few models from both manufacturers, sound similar in tonality, but the main difference in my experience is that Thiels are more dynamic and forceful. Perhaps they are less compressed? Vandersteens are more polite. Both are worth owning; they are the only two speakers I've ever been happy with. Currently, I own a pair of 1Cs and CS 2.4s. The 2.4s are significantly the better of the two. Previous models owned include 2CE Sigs and CS7s and CS6s. |
how do Thiels sound compared to Vandersteens?I have heard Thiel 1.6, 2.4, 2.4SE, 3.7, and 7.2; Vandersteen 2Ce Sig II, 3A Sig, Treo, Quatro, and 7 (the 7 is a true top shelf speaker and it *should* be with that price tag). I have lived with Thiel 1.6 and 2.4SE, and Vandersteen 2Ce Sig II (and am pretty familiar with 3A Sig). Comparing the Thiel 2.4 to Vandy 2/3, the Thiel has tighter, better defined bass but the Vandersteen has deeper extension. The Thiel has slightly better resolution and transparency. Some have opined that Vandersteens are "warm", "forgiving", and "laid back", Thiels are "bright", "ruthlessly revealing", and "forward". IMO, those are great exaggerations, if not entirely inaccurate. I find both brands quite close to neutral and very musical. For my sonic priorities, I prefer the bass articulation, midrange resolution, and overall transparency of the Thiel. And with my upgraded crossovers, I think you would have to move up to the carbon driver Vandersteens to match/exceed the clarity, resolution and transparency I'm getting. |
how do Thiels sound compared to Vandersteens?I personally have listened to a pair of Vandersteens driven by some very high end tubes amps at an audio show and I have to say they sound magical. It's something that I could never forget. I currently have a pair of CS2.4 in my living room and I have to say it's not quite what I've heard with the Van. at the show, but the amp I have is not some high end tube amps. I like the Thiel CS2.4 very much but everything considered, I would recommend the Van. since it's still in production and for most people, I think would be better. |
Oh and not that I am keeping score, esp bc quality is more important than quantity with these threads, but I take some pride in knowing this thread now has more high quality posts than the Tekton Double Impact thread - nice! And it was nice to see some of posters here recommended Thiels to the guy with $5000 to spend on new speakers. Which brings me to my next question for those that have the experience - how do Thiels sound compared to Vandersteens? Seems like there are many dedicated listeners for both, wonder how they became so attached to one or the other? |
Hey guys - just have to say +1 on adding a sub. I have 2.3s and don't consider myself predisposed to requiring good bass - it's never been a high priority characteristic I listen for when auditioning equipment - but based on these discussions and also realizing that what my room was missing was low frequency energy, I picked up an old but nearly perfect REL Storm III sub here on the 'gon a couple weeks ago (budget dictates vintage gear), and wow what a difference! Not running it with much gain but there is a palpable difference - feels and sounds much closer to live acoustics. |
just received this from Rob as well: "hi Kent, Hope
everything on your end is going well. I did some research, and here is what I
found. In January 2007 the CS3.7 was introduced (original version). On Jan 12
2008 revision 1 was introduced at approximately serial number #517,18. On
October 4 2008, revision 2 was initiated at approximately serial number
#881,82. Revision 2 is the current layout"
Thanks, |
Tom and All, I hope you all had a great weekend! This was the response I got from Rob regarding the aluminum caps on the 3.7s. "All CS3.7’s incorporated an aluminum cap. The earlier versions were anodized black, and there were some cases of the anodizing turning gold in color. The later CS3.7’s incorporated a Black Powder Coat on the caps, which would not change colors. I don’t know the serial number in which this change was made, but it was around the #800 serial number. No sonic issues with either version." |
Rosami - there are hypothetical failures which could damage a driver. Other DIYs here might know specifics. A feed resistor on the tweeter, or even midrange, could short rather than going open (highly unlikely). Such failures would usually be visible, as in burned parts from current overload. Look at your crossovers and if they look OK they probably are OK. Driver failure is generally caused one of two ways:A: lead wire fatigue from long, bold useB: voice coil burn-melt from over-load, almost always associated with clipping amp. Anyone else have thoughts? |
Thanks Tom. i anxiously look forward to hearing more from you regarding the 3.6 crossover upgrade - and results of the Thiel bankruptcy proceedings and wish you a good outcome. An additional question for you or one of the very knowledgeable techies in our group: if I get my drivers (tweeters/mids) rebuilt and then learn that there’s an issue with the crossovers (bad cap or whatever) that needs to be addressed, is it possible that a crossover problem could damage the newly rebuilt drivers? Thanks. This group is the best! |
Rosami and Jon and all - Yes, there are various new crossovers and yes, what is being learned on the 2.4, 2.2, 1.6 and PowerPoint all applies directly to the 3.6. And I have a pair of 3.6s on hand. My present work includes developing my measurement and listening systems to apply the required rigor to the upgrades. Regarding your questions of purchase, I can make no comment until the Thiel Audio bankruptcy settles. |
tomthiel I second rosami. I am patiently looking forward to the XO upgrades for the 3.6s. |
tomthiel it seems that the 2.4 crossover upgrades are pretty well finalized now and that a lot was learned regarding upgraded components and the effects on how the speakers sound. Since I own 3.6s, I’m interested in learning how much of the info gained from the 2.4 upgrades will be able to be applied to a 3,6 upgrade. Will it be necessary to start from scratch in designing the 3.6 crossover upgrades, and is it realistic to hope to be able to actually buy a completed crossover package from Rob G. In the near future? Thanks! |
Keep in mind when you compare the bass response of different speakers, it is hard to eliminate the room response of the different speakers. Several times I was ready to replace drivers of my 3.5 only to find out with near field measurement that the drivers were perfect but bass nodes and boundary effects caused the distortions. When I replaced the 3.5 with the 3.7, the room effects also changed significantly. |
@tmsrdg, It was a long time ago, but when I lived in NYC one my favorite dealers carried amongst others both Spectral and Thiel. They often rotated both in and out. I think this was up to the 2 2’s and 5’s time period, but pre co-ax. My recollection was that the combination demonstrated both of their attributes, but the Spectral while capable of handling the low impedance of say the CS 5’s, was happier with the above 4 Ohm and above Thiel’s. The Spectrals were admirably lighting fast, very detailed, smooth, with no electronic smear what so ever. Ultimately I found them a bit thin, threadbare and bleached. I can imagine them having their admirers though. The Spectral’s were said to be rather particular about matching pre’s and speaker cables, with their own pre and MIT cables being very strongly recommended! Hope this helps. |
I've got both the 3.7 and 2.2s and I've definitely noticed that the 2.2s have more prominent bass. I'm not surprised to hear that they have a little more than is completely flat. It's good quality and very enjoyable. They were my first Thiels and I consider them to be pretty much perfect living room speakers. They are so enjoyable, don't do anything wrong really. I bought them used for a second system and they turned me into a Thiel guy. They are an obscene bargain used. For just sitting and listening to music at moderate volume and solely for enjoyment I don't think it gets that much better. |
The 2.2 bass was our first passive radiator and as such it coupled to rooms better than anticipated and came out slightly under-damped and somewhat (1.5dB) higher in level below 200 Hz. It has the fullest bass of any Thiel product, which was warmly (ha ha) received by the public, but considered by Jim to be in error. Note the 1/3 octave Stereophile graph showing some excess bass. Notice also in the Stereophile review that the cabinet is possibly the quietest Thiel ever, including the new x.7s with curved panels. ( I have a fix for that 300 Hz and ringing, plus a hardening agent for the MDF baffle to increase rigidity. The 2.2 is the first (1990) cabinet designed from the ground up with in-house 5-axis CNC capability. I went wild with braces because they were so downright feasible! Note also the quality of the custom caps - those yellow styrene bypasses were from world-class German film / tin foil. The tweeter was our own from the ground up design for the CS5 - it is a powerhouse, even by today's standards. The woofer is the first iteration of the double cone with curved front and straight back. It is polypropylene with air core and works extremely well. That design became the basis for the present double aluminum with styrene fillet midranges. The most ordinary element is the midrange, but even that "paper" cone has polypropylene fiber reinforcement. As you might guess, I don't feel the need to make many excuses for the 2.2. As Beetle mentioned, they are my workhorse which I use to critique recordings in the making. Pops and others have expressed fondness for the pre-coax format. I agree that there is something simpler and cleaner in the wave launch. The coincident coax addresses a fundamental problem with first-order networks: vertical integration of the lobed radiation patterns. The coax solves it. But, IF you get your ear at the correct 35" up, the problem is solved at that listening position, obviating the need for the coax, which does introduce low-level anomalies of its own. The x.7 coax is better because the wavy surface spreads the tweeter-edge wave nicely. Todd, you are not nuts. There are some significant strengths of the 2.2, and resolution is less in the the bass and midrange. The new caps and treatments will upgrade the overall performance considerably. Beetle, the 3.7 XO pic you attached is for all 3 drivers. The mid and tweeter have separate motors (unlike the 2.4, etc.) with the midrange XO having the greatest part count (16 compared to 17 for woofer and tweeter combined). |
More upgrade for less cost than the more complex 2.4.The coax has separate XO for tweeter and midrange, right? Ie, not mechanical like the 2.4. is this pic for all 3 drivers? Or just the coax? https://hi-fi.com.pl/images/numeryhfim/2012-03/jpg/44-50_03_2012_07.jpg |
Regarding bass extension: I own the 3.7s and 2.2s. The 3.7s have been in my system ever since buying them last year and I'm preparing to sell the 2.2s. I was noticing some "crackle" in the tweeter of one of the 3.7 speakers and decided to change out the 3.7 for the 2.2 in an effort to narrow down the problem. Turns out I had a frayed speaker cable. Here's the thing. My perception was that the 2.2 actually offered more realistic bass extension. I had one of the Bach cantatas on for reference. Bach uses just one contrabass, but it needs to be heard. I felt the 2.2 did this better. But, the overall texture of the recording was much better with the 3.7. I could hear the lute in the ensemble readily for instance. That was not so clear with the same selection rendered on the 2.2. Totally nuts, or what? Todd |
Beetle - a 3.7 upgrade is quite straightforward since the drivers are so well behaved, there is not much circuitry in there. The tweeter caps could be upgraded to CSAs with perhaps an ultra bypass around the 1uF styrene/tin. Electrolytics to film for permanence. Resistors to Mills MRAs. Film feed coil on the woofer. More upgrade for less cost than the more complex 2.4. You'll see more from me after the Thiel Audio bankruptcy settles. Tom |
If you already have CS2.4 the XO upgrade is a no-brainer, IMO. Sure, it’s not the last word in low bass extension and definition but not much music happens below 30 cycles. You’re missing only some organ notes and the left most key or two on a piano. As for the 99% of the musical spectrum, oh my goodness! If you’re really pining for everything, adding a pair of subs seems sensible. I would probably get the new Vandersteen adjustable versions if I had the funds. Or patiently wait for used Thiel subs and XO to come up on the used market. If you’re not yet an owner and wondering what Thiel to buy, there is zero doubt in my mind that the 3.7/2.7 coax is the best Thiel driver ever, and I would put it among the best from any manufacturer. Super low resonance design so you’re hearing music, not distortion. The 2.4 coax is excellent in this regard but the low slope crossover is a real challenge, and the wavy x.7 coax really solves this problem. If Tom Thiel comes up with an upgrade for the 3.7 . . . |
Andy - I second your motion. As car guys say, the least expensive option is the one you have. So if you have 2.4s, then upgrading resistors and caps is a huge bang for the buck. I concur with the 2 sub solution. The CS2 - 8" woofer just can't move tons of air. Two smaller subs definitely trumps one larger one. I use Thiel SmartSubs . . . just because. But they are noisy and not presently repairable, so I can't recommend them. If you can cross a pair of subs properly, everything gets big. |
Sometimes you take it for granted what you have. After hearing a few garden varieties speakers even at pretty high price, you realize how good the CS2.4. The only thing I wish for is a bit more bass and I suspect some would agree. I guess the solution is: 1. If you like 2.4 but something better, then try to get another 7 ... that is either 2.7 or 3.7. 2. If you still want to keep the 2.4, upgrade the xover with audiophile quality caps. 3. Augment the CS2.4 with two high quality sub's - one for the left and oe for the right channel. |
Bighempin - if you contact Rob re the cap / nacelle on the 3.7, you might also ask the following: Does he know the serial number breaks for the 3 versions of the 3.7? I have developed XO schematics for the original, revision 1 and revision 2, but do not know where they occurred. If you find out, please share it with us all. Thanks. Tom |
I actually found a guy who has some 2.7s and 3.7s available. I am interested in both, I’m just waiting on pricing and pictures. The 3.7s have a serial number in the 600’s. I have read, in this thread perhaps, that the early original production run of the 3.7s had a metal dome that was tweaked in later runs for a composite(i think) dome. I am assuming a serial number in the 600s would be a second or later production run, can anyone confirm this? And does anyone know if there are any pros and or cons, or problems, with either version of the dome? Thanks! |